### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-30524 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL HAMPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. ANDY BROWN; MEDICAL STAFF; DUCOTE, Assista nt Warden; BILLY TIGNER; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT NURSE; JOHN THOMAS, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:10-CV-1926

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael H ampton, Louisiana prisoner # 334976, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

c o m p l a i n t against Jackson Parish Sheriff Andy Brown; Warden Billy Tigner; Assist a n t W arden Timmy D u cote; Major Jon Thomas; and unnamed medical personnel at the Jackson P arish Correctional Center (JPCC), a sserting various claims. Hampton now appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants and the denial of h is own motion f or summary judgment. A

U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May21, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-30524 Document: 00512249179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2013No. 12-30524

district court “shall grant s ummary judgment if the movant shows that there is

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant i s e n t i t l e d to judgment as a matter of l aw.” F E D
. R. C I V
. P. 56(a). We review a district court’s ruling o n summary judgment de n ovo, employing the same standard used by the district court. McFaul v. Valenzuela , 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). Hampton c ontends t h at the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by exposing him to environmental t ob a c c o s m o k e (ETS), a claim that is analyzed under the two-pronged approach of Helling v. McKinney , 5 09 U.S. 25, 35-36 (1993). The summary judgment evidence showed that JPCC had a nonsmoking policy set out in w ritten signs as well a s notices painted on the walls in the facility. Further, the policy was e nforced through disciplinary actions and, according to H ampton, pepper spray in some c a ses, an d W a r d e n Tigner made clear that s moking was not permitted. Thus, the evidence d emonstrates that the defendants were not deliberately indifferent to the risk of ETS. See Helling , 509 U.S. a t 36-37; Farmer v . Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Hampton’s vague assertions that the policy was not sufficiently e nforc e d i s not enough to demonstrate a genuine dispute o f m a terial f act. See McFaul , 6 84 F .3d at 571. H i s reliance on Louisiana l aw prohibiting s m oking in prisons i s li k e w i s e unavailing, as § 1983 relief i s available o nly f or violations of federal statutory or constitutional rights. See W oodard v. Andrus , 419 F

. 3d 348, 353 (5th Cir. 2005). Hampton’s claim that he was denied transfer to another facility where he could pursue rehabilitation programs and earn good time cr e d i t s also fails. Prisoners have no constitutional right to such services, nor do they have a right to transfer to a particular facility. Beck v. Lynaugh , 842 F.2d 759, 762 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Vincent v. Stalder , No. 92-4601, 1993 WL 58797, at * 1 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 1 993) (unpublished but precedential, see 5 T H C I R
. R. 4 7.5.3). Although Hampton cites a Louisiana statute regarding th e e s t ablishment o f rehabilitation programs, the provision of services i s contingent on numerous factors and does

2 Case: 12-30524 Document: 00512249179 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2013No. 12-30524

not create a c onstitutional expectancy of services. See, e . g., Richardson v. Joslin , 501 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 2007). As there w ere no constitutional violations, th ere is n o need t o reach issues of qualified i mmunity or supervisory liability r aised by Hampton. Further, the district court did not abuse i ts discretion by declining to exercise supplemental j u r i s d i c t i on over any state law claims raised by Hampton. See Welch v. Thompson , 20 F.3d 636, 644 (5th Cir. 1994). Hampton’s contention that summary judgme n t d e prived him of his constitutional right to a j ury trial is w ithout merit. See Baranowski v. Hart , 486 F.3d 112, 1 26 (5th Cir. 2007); Davis v. U.S. Gov’t , 742 F.2d 1 71, 1 7 3 ( 5 t h C ir. 1984) (per curiam). Finally, Hampton has abandoned an y c hallenge to the r ejection of his claims of retaliation, unsanitary living c o n d itions, and d e nial of a dequate medical care by failing to brief them. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 2 22, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-30524 Document: 00512249179 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/21/2013